COMMENTARY

``This creep Jeffrey Dahmer in Milwaukee. The trial`s over now. He`s going to prison. And I got through it all without reading one word about him. If I read every word and watched every minute of the trial on TV, would I be a better-informed, more well-rounded person?``

Possibly. You would know more about the difficulty of establishing whether someone is legally sane or insane.

``Sure, that`s why those TV guys were running out of the courtroom to get on camera to give us every creepy detail. They were thinking: `We want to enlighten the viewers about the difficulty of establishing one`s state of mind when one is killing and eating people.` I knew all I had to know. The guy was nuts.``

No, the jury found that he was not insane.

``Yeah, I know. But just because the jury says he`s not insane don`t mean he`s not nuts.``

You seem to be contradicting yourself.

``Let me explain. What if I invite you over to the house and I take you in the kitchen and I say: `See that big pot? I been killing guys and cooking `em in it.` And I showed you something that would make you believe it. You know, leftovers. What would you say?``

You mean after I ran out of your house screaming?

``Yeah. What would you say about my mental state?``

I suppose I`d say you were, uh ...

``You`d say I was nuts, right?``

I suppose, something like that.

``So why should I watch TV or read a paper to find out what some nut has been doing?``

But in a court of law, while trying to resolve the question of whether someone is insane, you just can`t say he is nuts. You would have to define what you mean by nuts.

If you believe that, then you believe the jury shouldn`t have found him to be sane. Therefore, he shouldn`t be sent to a prison for life, since we don`t treat insane people that way.

``I didn`t say that. You don`t have to be insane to be nuts.``

This is not easy to follow.

``Look, I know he`s nuts, my brother Fats knows he`s nuts and if I go down the bar here and take a survey, everybody will say, yeah, sure, he`s nuts. I bet everybody on that jury thought he was nuts. Anybody who ain`t nuts knows he`s nuts. And there are probably some nuts who would tell you he`s nuts.``

You seem to be saying that anyone who commits unspeakable crimes is, to use your word, nuts.

``Yeah. Some are nuttier than others. A guy who sticks up a grocer and then whacks him on the head for the fun of it is a little nuts. The guy in Milwaukee, he`s real nuts.``

Then you don`t want to lock any criminals up because they are deranged. If it were up to you, our criminal justice system would be in disarray.

``You got it mixed up again. I`m just saying there ought to be separate categories. That way, when someone comes in and tries to get off by saying he`s insane, the judge could say: `Nah, you ain`t insane. You`re just nuts. And if I don`t lock a nut like you up for good, then I`ll be nuts.```

That`s a very loose standard.

``No, it`s easy. You go up to 100 normal people and ask them if some savings and loan swindler is nuts. They`ll all say that he`s just a crook. Then you say: `By the way, you mind if I eat your leg?` And they`ll say: `You must be nuts.` See? It`s real simple.``

It`s a good thing for our criminal justice system that you`re not a lawyer.